Supreme Court Says Two-Child Rules for Local Body Elections Have Lost Relevance as Fertility Falls; Javed Ruling Sent to a Larger Bench
On 4 November 2026, the Supreme Court, in Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, said that laws which disqualify people with more than two children from local body elections have lost their relevance.
The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe noted that India's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has fallen from about 3.0 in 2003 to 1.9 now, below the replacement level of 2.1. The Court said the base of such laws, the fear of overpopulation, has crumbled.
The case came from Maharashtra. A woman elected sarpanch (head of the village panchayat) of Kakoda Gram Panchayat in 2022 was removed under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, because she had a third child born in 2014.
The Court used the doctrine of temporal reasonableness: a law that was reasonable when made can become arbitrary when the reason behind it disappears. It also said reproductive choice is part of Article 21, and that the norm forced women to choose between having a child and taking part in democracy.
The Court referred the 2003 judgment Javed v. State of Haryana (which upheld such norms) to a larger bench. Until the case is decided, the stay continues and the woman remains sarpanch.
The Court also noted that India's elderly population (60+) rose from about 8.3% (2014) to 9.7% (2024), and that China moved from a one-child to a three-child policy (2021) without a clear rise in births.
Two-Child Norm in Local Body Elections
A two-child norm is a rule in some State laws that stops a person with more than two living children from contesting or holding office in a panchayat or municipality. States brought these rules in the 1990s, after the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992), to push population control by asking local leaders to "set an example". The power comes from the fact that the Constitution lets State legislatures decide the disqualifications for panchayat and municipal members (Articles 243F and 243V). The norm has never applied to elections to Parliament or State Assemblies.
The Court has not cancelled the two-child norm, but it has asked a larger bench to rethink Javed. Its view is that the population fear behind the norm no longer holds, and that the rule hurts women most.
Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and Replacement-Level Fertility
Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is the average number of children a woman would have in her lifetime if she followed today's birth patterns at each age. Replacement-level fertility is the TFR at which each generation exactly replaces itself, about 2.1 children per woman. The extra 0.1 covers children who die before adulthood and the slightly higher number of boys born. When TFR stays below 2.1 for a long time, the population eventually stops growing and becomes older.
The Supreme Court used the fall in TFR from about 3.0 to 1.9 as its main evidence that two-child penalties are outdated. It also pointed out that States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala now have very low fertility, so punishing a third child no longer serves a real population goal.
Doctrine of Temporal Reasonableness: When a Valid Law Becomes Unreasonable With Time
The doctrine of temporal reasonableness says that a law can be fair and valid when it is made, but become unfair and invalid later, because the facts that justified it have changed. "Temporal" simply means "related to time". So courts do not judge a law only by the conditions of the year it was passed. They also ask: does the reason for this law still exist today? If the reason has disappeared, the law may become arbitrary (without good reason) and can violate the right to equality under Article 14.
In the two-child norm case, the Supreme Court used this doctrine to say that a law justified in 2003, when India feared overpopulation, may have become arbitrary in 2026, when fertility is below replacement level. Because a smaller bench cannot overrule Javed, it sent the question to a larger bench.
- Case: Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division (Supreme Court, 4 November 2026)
- Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe; amicus curiae: Rukhmini Bobde
- Law involved: Section 14(1)(j-1), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959
- TFR: about 3.0 (2003) to 1.9 (now); replacement level 2.1
- Elderly (60+) share: about 8.3% (2014) to 9.7% (2024); projected near 15% by 2036
- Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) and Rajbala v. State of Haryana referred for reconsideration by a larger bench
- China: ended one-child policy in 2015; adopted a three-child policy in 2021
- Reproductive choice recognised as part of Article 21